Interesting property reporting

[elguapo]

I couldn't help noticing this article in the NZH about a couple of properties changing hands very quickly with massive price increases.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11782787

Now the curious thing is it takes just seconds to work out that the various buyers are in fact the same party, yet the Herald seems to manage to completely miss this, despite it raising some far more interesting questions. Are reporters really this bad?

[Don't believe the Hype]

I couldn't help noticing this article in the NZH about a couple of properties changing hands very quickly with massive price increases.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11782787

Now the curious thing is it takes just seconds to work out that the various buyers are in fact the same party, yet the Herald seems to manage to completely miss this, despite it raising some far more interesting questions. Are reporters really this bad?

Yes... What a beat up... The whole article is about one bloke who wanted to own adjoining properties so sent in two friends to make offers on the properties probably funded by the final owner before transferring the titles.

the value didn't increase over a few days, the original owners valued the asset as a home while the developer valued it as a development site.

this sort of biased reporting is out of control at the moment - well has been for months and months

The next article is about the market peaking - watch out - where the supporting data is that the growth rate is 8% (2-3 x GDP growth) down from 10+ % growth.

I guess bad news sells newspapers (or clickthru)

[Anthonyacat]

Clickbait.

Read an article yesterday saying that property may not be a good investment going forward, because it will probably only go up around 10% in 2017.

There is no way the underlying source phrased it that way. Journalism has been dying for years, but it seems like they're just accepting anyone writing whatever these days.

[Wayne]

probably only go up around 10% in 2017.

Yes - I read that and thought 'when is only 10% bad'?

[elguapo]

Clickbait.

Yes, but he has missed a more interesting story;

Back property (1897sq m site):
• Feb 14, 2016: Sold for $1.45m from Jennifer Woodman to Hua (Danny) Wu.
• Aug 4, 2016: Sold for $2.4m from Hua Wu to Sha Liu.
• Aug 8, 2016: Sold for $2.8m from Sha Liu to Treasure Plus Ltd.

The directors of Treasure Plus Ltd are;

• Hua ZHANG,
• Shaohuan LIU,

The same damn people? The lawyers acting for Treasure Plus claim to know nothing about the prior transactions, yet they are the directors. Haven't they just create a tax liability on a million dollars for no reason? For what purpose?

[Wayne]

Yes, but he has missed a more interesting story;

Back property (1897sq m site):
• Feb 14, 2016: Sold for $1.45m from Jennifer Woodman to Hua (Danny) Wu.
• Aug 4, 2016: Sold for $2.4m from Hua Wu to Sha Liu.
• Aug 8, 2016: Sold for $2.8m from Sha Liu to Treasure Plus Ltd.

The directors of Treasure Plus Ltd are;

• Hua ZHANG,
• Shaohuan LIU,

The same damn people? The lawyers acting for Treasure Plus claim to know nothing about the prior transactions, yet they are the directors. Haven't they just create a tax liability on a million dollars for no reason? For what purpose?

I wonder if all this allows them to borrow more money?
Inflate the price and borrow more than the place is really worth!

[elguapo]

I wonder if all this allows them to borrow more money?
Inflate the price and borrow more than the place is really worth!

Maybe. A very unwise offshore bank? Odds on an informal offshore lender IMO, can't see any bank in NZ letting that one slip by.

Anyway, I though it was the most interesting part of the story, even through the Herald completely missed it.

[Stark]

I read this article the other day, I thought it looked more like some kind of money laundering operation rather than investors flipping properties as the article suggested, although the above borrowing scheme does sound more plausible.